[The 10th. ] THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS. 423 
itor for the title of sea-serpent, — Saccopharynx flagellum, which 
IT have heard is a bona fide black snake, and Boa constrictor , 
which is received on all kinds as a veritable serpent, — I think 
the absence of ophidian vertebrae is of no great moment. The 
Sauria offer similar coincidences with the Ophidia, and present a 
similar discrepancy: their heads and necks might readily be des- 
cribed by general observers as those of snakes or serpents, but the 
undulating motion with which they swim is almost precisely simil- 
ar to that of snakes, and holds equally good as an objection to 
our marine monster entering their ranks. The Crocodilia and Che- 
lonia have next to be considered, and these truly possess the sub- 
merged limbs requisite for propulsing in a direct course along the 
surface of the water; moreover, natatorial undulation of the verte- 
bral column in crocodiles is highly improbable, in turtles. absolu- 
tely impossible; hence: as far as aquatic progression is concerned , 
these reptiles agree more aptly than any other known living ani- 
mal with the recently-published descriptions of so-called sea-serpents. 
Yet the comparatively compact form of both crocodiles and turtles, 
and especially the orbicular figure of the latter quite preclude the 
idea of their being described —- even by the veriest tyro in obser- 
vation — as snakes of a hundred feet in length; again in both 
crocodiles and turtoises floating on the surface of water, the back, 
and not the head and neck, must be the part most prominently 
and permanently visible. It is therefore manifest that no existing 
groups of reptiles answers the conditions required by the recently — 
recorded descriptions of the sea-serpent.” 
“Finally, among fishes, the mind turns very willingly to the 
sharks as offering a solution of the problem; and the record res- 
pecting the sea-serpent of Stronsa (Zool. 2320) has given great 
weight to this view, adopted as it has been by such eminent naturalists 
as Drs. Mantell and Melville (Zool. 2310). With regard to the 
Stronsa animal, | entertain very great doubts of the decision in 
question; it certainly does not seem to have possessed the vertebrae 
of an ophidian, but then no naturalist desires to make it one; 
the boa hypothesis is applied only to the sea-serpent of the Daedalus. 
Leaving, however, this Orcadian monster to its own merits, I may 
observe, first, that all analogy contravenes the idea of a shark 
having a neck, and secondly, I would beg of those gentlemen 
who advocate this hypothesis, to take their pencils and depict a 
shark with a head and shoulders clear out of the water, and his 
body hanging almost perpendicularly below. I think the most 
